Is Arsenal better without Jack Wilshire

Arsenal has been on a tear since Jack Wilshere went down, and usually when a team loses there best player they play worse, not the best they have all season.

They also were in good form at the start of the season. The numbers support this as well. It doesn't make much sense.

I believe this started when they played Bayern off the pitch in the second leg of the Champions league. I think the first leg was one of the last games Wilshere played in and Arsenal got destroyed 3-1 at home.

The last EPL game he played in was the Spurs game in which he was pretty poor giving away the ball near the box and misplacing passes in the final third.

This is not to say anything about how good he is or not, we have already had that conversation. I think his fans and me disagree about where he stands among the worlds best players, but we do agree he is one of the gunners best players. So why have they been better, and not just a little better but much better, check out the numbers.

Arsenal Played 10 games at the start of the season before he came back and won 6 tied 3 and lost 1.

For the Last 4 games Arsenal has looked like a different squad, Destroying Bayern and handling Swansea,Reading and West Brom winning 3 of the 4 games by 2 or more goals and not conceding as much in fact just 1 goal from open play over the last 4 games.

So now The Gunner record w/o Jack is 10 wins 3 Draws and 1 loss. And that is with playing some very good teams I may add to include – Liverpool, Man City, Chelsea, Olympiakos (destroying the Greek league) and Bayern (destroying the German League.)

With Wilshere:

Jack’s played in 18 EPL games- 10 wins, 6 lost, 3 drawn
He features in 1 Carling Cup game and it's the game they get knocked out by Bradford City.
He features in 3 CL games- Ties Shalke 2-2, Wins against Montpeillier 2-0, loses to Bayern 3-1
Features in 4 FA Cup games – Lose to Blackburn 1-0, beat Brighton & Hove Albion 3-2, Draw Swansea 2-2, Beat Swansea 1-0

I mean what gives? The numbers paint a pretty obvious picture. Had Arsenal not had Wilshere all year they would be sitting pretty right now.

I don't want this to be some flame war but have gunner fans noticed this? And what could be the possible explanation? I know sometimes teams go on good and bad streaks for no apparent reason but this is a good amount of games to pull from so it's not just a fluke.

Simply No.

no

i think when any team loses a player of wilshere's quality they are in no way 'better' but it is possible, as arsenal are showing this, for players to step up in a key players absence and get results despite the player being missing.

one example is when ronaldo was injured during the 08/09 season, i believe, for about 4 months. over those 4 months madrid played more fluidly, got more goals (i think), and won more games.

but would anyone argue that madrid is better without ronaldo? maybe only le sam.

the result comes from the collective team stepping up in the players absence and being on good form.

where is le sam btw

and to answer the op i think its more due to the fixtures rather the absence of a certain player, specially this player

i think some times that a midfield of arteta, ramsey, and rosicky is a little more structured and looks better defensively .

but the context of our win streaks must be explored more . we won against a liverpool that hadnt adjusted to rogers ideas and drew against a de motivated city

bayern didnt know how to approach the game after we scored, and we were pretty lucky . and they were missing schweinsteiger .

i think wilshere has to polish his game but he is a young player and i am sure he will improve over time . he has to improve his decision making and quality of final ball . and he has to bring the same structure to the team that rosicky brings . after that the question will be if he is better as an am or as a cm .


are they better without wilshere probably not . but they should they consider not playing him more ? i think so .

Any team is better with Wilshere.

Yet that doesn't mean his importance isn't overstated. I find him to be a fantastic young talent among the elite ones for the future, yet he must work on some facets of his game to which need to be developed.

What irked me was how Santi continued to be criticized only for Wilshere to be raised on a pedestal which wasn't reflective of his influence of the team. Yet nowhere in the season bar maybe a stretch of 2 games did Santi under perform as its clear people will only judge a performance by its tangibility and not the whole 90 minutes.

What parts need to be developed? Well he needs to ditch the move of trying to zig zag past defenders when they know his dominant foot is his left one. His final ball needs improvement, his shooting and the somewhat predictability of his play.

Where he excels is that he IS able to carry a midfield when the pieces are down, that his leadership and driving mentality can bring the whole team forward and...well he is actually a very good player for someone his age! But better than Santi this year? Absolutely not. Not statistically or influentially.

Yet his absence doesn't mean Arsenal are better of because no team would be better without him bar Barcelona. Why?

Tomas Rosicky.

Who? A player who this forum and Arsenal fans continue to underrate for some odd reason, despite him taking the Arsenal midfield by the balls. Arteta, Santi and to an extent even Ramsey have been influential yet since the reprised inclusion of Rozza, their play has improved leaps and bounds. He is a player who plys his trade so confidently and efficiently that is a joy to watch. So much conviction behind his passes, so impressive his play slows down and of course (classic Rozza) how he is able to speed up play to the point where no one is on his wavelength as such is the cerebral little mozart's ability. He is 32 yet players like him aren't English/Brazilian and rely little on their physical attributes. I mean the Czech has had 2-3 serious injuries within a space of 5 years!

Dnmac4 wrote:I believe this started when they played Bayern off the pitch in the second leg of the Champions league. I think the first leg was one of the last games Wilshere played in and Arsenal got destroyed 3-1 at home.

So now The Gunner record w/o Jack is 10 wins 3 Draws and 1 loss. And that is with playing some very good teams I may add to include – Liverpool, Man City, Chelsea, Olympiakos (destroying the Greek league) and Bayern (destroying the German League.)

Did you even watch the match? Bayern were complacent as they comfortably defeated Arsenal in London and never really got out of second gear in München. They just did enough to go through and obviously it sufficed.

Yes. They had a good start to the season until Wilshere came back who does neither score nor assist and they turned into shit. Now he's injured again and Arsenal is winning again. Obvious to see.

Over the 18 Premier League games that Wilshere has started this season, the Gunners have won 10 games - a win rate of 55.6% - whilst of the 11 he has missed, they have only won four - a 36.4% win rate. That means Arsenal have gained an average of 1.83 points per game with Wilshere starting this season, compared to 1.54 without him.

ESPN

timzink wrote:i think some times that a midfield of arteta, ramsey, and rosicky is a little more structured and looks better defensively .

but the context of our win streaks must be explored more . we won against a liverpool that hadnt adjusted to rogers ideas and drew against a de motivated city

bayern didnt know how to approach the game after we scored, and we were pretty lucky . and they were missing schweinsteiger .

i think wilshere has to polish his game but he is a young player and i am sure he will improve over time . he has to improve his decision making and quality of final ball . and he has to bring the same structure to the team that rosicky brings . after that the question will be if he is better as an am or as a cm .


are they better without wilshere probably not . but they should they consider not playing him more ? i think so .

I tend to agree with this answer to a point. I think certain players get to handle the ball more when he is out of the game and can show there class a little more. Gervinho has IMO been the main beneficiary. He looks night and day in the start of the season and on this run of form. Plus they seem to play him a lot more with Wilshere out of the line up.

Even if he's not scoring he just gets into dangerous areas and creates havoc.

I think undoubtedly there defense is way better when he's been out of the game and the team approach just looks way more structured.

As for the people just answering "no", that is really just ignoring all the information out there and not thinking about it.

The data is striking. It is really night and day. Arsenal simply almost never loses when he is out of the lineup.

When he's in it they have lost 10 times. And a good amount of those losses are to some poor teams(Norwich, Swansea, Blackburn, Bradford City), that's almost half of them.

To simply just say "no" is your opinion and you have a right to it but I don't think it's as simple as that.

Dnmac, i'm sorry but I can't take this topic seriously as you stated that they played Bayern of the park in the 2nd leg without Wilshere which is just not true, anybody who watched the game would know this.

Wilshere's impact on this team is easily recognizable and the simple fact is that since he has been out the Arsenal players have copped immense stick for over relying on him and they have finally stepped up.

To say they are better without Wilshere based on this short series of games is ludicrous.

RealGunner wrote:

Over the 18 Premier League games that Wilshere has started this season, the Gunners have won 10 games - a win rate of 55.6% - whilst of the 11 he has missed, they have only won four - a 36.4% win rate. That means Arsenal have gained an average of 1.83 points per game with Wilshere starting this season, compared to 1.54 without him.

ESPN

Is that an article, do you have a link?

Rg you beat me to that. The annoying thing about this guy is that he always gets his facts wrong when talking about wilshere.

Arsenal before wilshere returned won 3 of 8 premier league games, is that scintillating form? Sadly not, but it is the reality unlike this fairy tale stuff dmack posts. Since he returned he started 18 pl games which arsenal won 10, clearly an improvement. During that time he didn't play twice and arsenal drew both games, so now it's won 3 of 10 games. Since he got injured arsenal won 3 pl games so now it's won 6 out of 13, that's still less win ration than with him. I think this completely destructs this entire thread as it was based on lies.

Non pl games let's look, carlling cup we beat a lower league scrub and reading without him (both games we sent b teams), then we lose against Branford, with a strong team include cazorla, it went to penalties, cazorla failed, wilshere didn't (only Jack and ox could score their pens)

Fa cup, we beat Swansea with him, beat Brighton with him subbed on, lose to blackburn with him only as a sub because w didn't play a first 11.

Champions league bayern played much better in the first leg than the second when they clearly didn't play with as much intensity.

So that's that.

izzy wrote:Dnmac, i'm sorry but I can't take this topic seriously as you stated that they played Bayern of the park in the 2nd leg without Wilshere which is just not true, anybody who watched the game would know this.

Wilshere's impact on this team is easily recognizable and the simple fact is that since he has been out the Arsenal players have copped immense stick for over relying on him and they have finally stepped up.

To say they are better without Wilshere based on this short series of games is ludicrous.

It's not a short series of games, it's 14 games. That is a large enough sample size to make a judgement. Is it a correct judgement, who knows. But what you're saying is laughable since Jack has only started 18 games this year.

Not much difference, ehh?

And why do you bring Bayern up? At home with him Arsenal got played off the park and on the road in one of the hardest places to play in the world they played Bayern off the park. It's pretty simple.

And to the guy only talking about Bayern, I don't believe in teams going out and not trying. I just don't believe that is ever a coach's game plan nor do I believe that players of this caliber go out there and hang on or don't try hard. I think Arsenal played them off there own pitch just like Bayern did the game before. And I think if the game was 5 minutes longer Arsenal would have gone through.

Say what you will but the whole, "they were just holding on" thing doesn't fly with me especially at home in a CL knockout game with Arsenal scoring in the first 5 minutes. If anything the best strategy would be to score and end the tie not "hang on". Arsenal did it to them, give them credit.

Dnmac4 wrote:

RealGunner wrote:

Over the 18 Premier League games that Wilshere has started this season, the Gunners have won 10 games - a win rate of 55.6% - whilst of the 11 he has missed, they have only won four - a 36.4% win rate. That means Arsenal have gained an average of 1.83 points per game with Wilshere starting this season, compared to 1.54 without him.

ESPN

Is that an article, do you have a link?

http://espnfc.com/blog/_/name/tacticsandanalysis/id/1109?cc=5739

Dnmac4 wrote:

izzy wrote:Dnmac, i'm sorry but I can't take this topic seriously as you stated that they played Bayern of the park in the 2nd leg without Wilshere which is just not true, anybody who watched the game would know this.

Wilshere's impact on this team is easily recognizable and the simple fact is that since he has been out the Arsenal players have copped immense stick for over relying on him and they have finally stepped up.

To say they are better without Wilshere based on this short series of games is ludicrous.

It's not a short series of games, it's 14 games. That is a large enough sample size to make a judgement. Is it a correct judgement, who knows. But what you're saying is laughable since Jack has only started 18 games this year.

Not much difference, ehh?

And why do you bring Bayern up? At home with him Arsenal got played off the park and on the road in one of the hardest places to play in the world they played Bayern off the park. It's pretty simple.

And to the guy only talking about Bayern, I don't believe in teams going out and not trying. I just don't believe that is ever a coach's game plan nor do I believe that players of this caliber go out there and hang on or don't try hard. I think Arsenal played them off there own pitch just like Bayern did the game before. And I think if the game was 5 minutes longer Arsenal would have gone through.

Say what you will but the whole, "they were just holding on" thing doesn't fly with me especially at home in a CL knockout game with Arsenal scoring in the first 5 minutes. If anything the best strategy would be to score and end the tie not "hang on". Arsenal did it to them, give them credit.

Yeah, this is quite clearly a 'Wilshere is overrated and Cazorla is the main man' thread.

Did you watch that Bayern game? This is ridiculous.

Diego Armando Maradona wrote:Rg you beat me to that. The annoying thing about this guy is that he always gets his facts wrong when talking about wilshere.

Arsenal before wilshere returned won 3 of 8 premier league games, is that scintillating form? Sadly not, but it is the reality unlike this fairy tale stuff dmack posts. Since he returned he started 18 pl games which arsenal won 10, clearly an improvement. During that time he didn't play twice and arsenal drew both games, so now it's won 3 of 10 games. Since he got injured arsenal won 3 pl games so now it's won 6 out of 13, that's still less win ration than with him. I think this completely destructs this entire thread as it was based on lies.

Non pl games let's look, carlling cup we beat a lower league scrub and reading without him (both games we sent b teams), then we lose against Branford, with a strong team include cazorla, it went to penalties, cazorla failed, wilshere didn't (only Jack and ox could score their pens)

Fa cup, we beat Swansea with him, beat Brighton with him subbed on, lose to blackburn with him only as a sub because w didn't play a first 11.

Champions league bayern played much better in the first leg than the second when they clearly didn't play with as much intensity.

So that's that.

Swear to god my fact's didn't come from where ever he got that, even if it did what's the difference. Do you go into every post where someone references and article and talk s***? I didn't think so as almost 60% of the posts on here reference an article.

I have been talking about Wilshire for 2 straight seasons now. get with the program.

A Lot of my fact's are not in that quote as far as where he pulled it from I have no clue, if there in some article because I didn't pull my stats from any article. I just looked at Arsenal's schedule and results. Pretty easy for someone with a brain.

Diego Armando Maradona wrote:Rg you beat me to that. The annoying thing about this guy is that he always gets his facts wrong when talking about wilshere.

Arsenal before wilshere returned won 3 of 8 premier league games, is that scintillating form? Sadly not, but it is the reality unlike this fairy tale stuff dmack posts. Since he returned he started 18 pl games which arsenal won 10, clearly an improvement. During that time he didn't play twice and arsenal drew both games, so now it's won 3 of 10 games. Since he got injured arsenal won 3 pl games so now it's won 6 out of 13, that's still less win ration than with him. I think this completely destructs this entire thread as it was based on lies.

Non pl games let's look, carlling cup we beat a lower league scrub and reading without him (both games we sent b teams), then we lose against Branford, with a strong team include cazorla, it went to penalties, cazorla failed, wilshere didn't (only Jack and ox could score their pens)

Fa cup, we beat Swansea with him, beat Brighton with him subbed on, lose to blackburn with him only as a sub because w didn't play a first 11.

Champions league bayern played much better in the first leg than the second when they clearly didn't play with as much intensity.

So that's that.

This

and the main reason we are winning games now is the change in formation and personnel. We have dropped a LW permanently for an extra midfielder.

Also we have dropped Vermaelen who was poor all season but was playing due to being the captain. And dropped Szczesny who has been poor since his injury.

It's other factors which have helped us win games in the last weeks and so rather than jack being out.

However, the current team is winning games so i wouldn't necessarily break it and start wilshere (or theo who is back ).

Pool have a pretty good win percentage without Suarez, even higher than with him I believe (correct me if I'm wrong though) . Does that mean we're better without Suarez??

Stats mean nothing. Everyone knows Arsenal are a better team with Wilshere, as any other team would be if they had a player his caliber.

Arquitecto wrote:Any team is better with Wilshere.

Yet that doesn't mean his importance isn't overstated. I find him to be a fantastic young talent among the elite ones for the future, yet he must work on some facets of his game to which need to be developed.

What irked me was how Santi continued to be criticized only for Wilshere to be raised on a pedestal which wasn't reflective of his influence of the team. Yet nowhere in the season bar maybe a stretch of 2 games did Santi under perform as its clear people will only judge a performance by its tangibility and not the whole 90 minutes.

What parts need to be developed? Well he needs to ditch the move of trying to zig zag past defenders when they know his dominant foot is his left one. His final ball needs improvement, his shooting and the somewhat predictability of his play.

Where he excels is that he IS able to carry a midfield when the pieces are down, that his leadership and driving mentality can bring the whole team forward and...well he is actually a very good player for someone his age! But better than Santi this year? Absolutely not. Not statistically or influentially.

Yet his absence doesn't mean Arsenal are better of because no team would be better without him bar Barcelona. Why?

Tomas Rosicky.

Who? A player who this forum and Arsenal fans continue to underrate for some odd reason, despite him taking the Arsenal midfield by the balls. Arteta, Santi and to an extent even Ramsey have been influential yet since the reprised inclusion of Rozza, their play has improved leaps and bounds. He is a player who plys his trade so confidently and efficiently that is a joy to watch. So much conviction behind his passes, so impressive his play slows down and of course (classic Rozza) how he is able to speed up play to the point where no one is on his wavelength as such is the cerebral little mozart's ability. He is 32 yet players like him aren't English/Brazilian and rely little on their physical attributes. I mean the Czech has had 2-3 serious injuries within a space of 5 years!

I probably agree with this comment the most overall. Wilshere is great but he is put on a bit of a pedestal, and about Rosicky I agree 100%. I love Rosicky and definitely believe he should be the first-choice playmaker of our midfield 3. He revived our season and was our best player at the end of last year when RvP's form dipped, and he's doing it again now, yet I don't know if he will ever get the credit he deserves. The forgotten man, Little Mozart

Dnmac4 wrote:

Jack’s played in 18 EPL games- 10 wins, 6 lost, 3 drawn

I like this in particular.

Diego Armando Maradona wrote:Rg you beat me to that. The annoying thing about this guy is that he always gets his facts wrong when talking about wilshere.

Arsenal before wilshere returned won 3 of 8 premier league games, is that scintillating form? Sadly not, but it is the reality unlike this fairy tale stuff dmack posts. Since he returned he started 18 pl games which arsenal won 10, clearly an improvement. During that time he didn't play twice and arsenal drew both games, so now it's won 3 of 10 games. Since he got injured arsenal won 3 pl games so now it's won 6 out of 13, that's still less win ration than with him. I think this completely destructs this entire thread as it was based on lies.

Non pl games let's look, carlling cup we beat a lower league scrub and reading without him (both games we sent b teams), then we lose against Branford, with a strong team include cazorla, it went to penalties, cazorla failed, wilshere didn't (only Jack and ox could score their pens)

Fa cup, we beat Swansea with him, beat Brighton with him subbed on, lose to blackburn with him only as a sub because w didn't play a first 11.

Champions league bayern played much better in the first leg than the second when they clearly didn't play with as much intensity.

So that's that.

And how do you break down the losses? He has played in 9 of Arsenal's 11 losses this year. And he's played in every game in which knocked them out of a tournament minus the second leg of the Bayern tie where they won because the game he played in was the game that knocked them out.

Losses is what kills you in tournament football and in a league since you get 0 points.

Can you please explain that away? Arsenal simply almost never lose when Wilshire doesn't play. That is a FACT.

Arsenal finally defending as a team, Wenger starting Arsenal's best CB, Ramsey, Cazorla and Gervais picking form are some of the reasons we're in good form and winning games not Wilshere's absence but you make a good point about Wilshere's defensive side.

In my opinion if you want Wilshere in the centre midfield you play him alongside a proper defensive midfielder - that way Wilshere will have more freedom in his game and can go forward without being worried *too* much about how much space he's left behind. Or play him in a three man midfield.

However I believe his future will be playing as a central attacking midfielder. He has some great traits for that position but needs to work on some things such as his final pass, shooting and other things that are needed to be a great in that position.

He played in 8 of the losses not 9, and one of which was as a substitute. But really so what? Cazorla played in all our losses, that means we play better without cazorla does it?

Except olympiakos, neither of them played in that loss, messaging makes it 12 losses