Were Arsenal wrong to sell Gervinho this season?

With the recent resurgence of Ramsey still fresh in my eyes,it set me thinking whether GYK would've turned the tide like Ramsey and become a better player this season,had he still stayed at Arsenal?

Seems like he has been revitalized by the new challenge he is facing in Roma and looks like he will only get better.Was responsible in some way for Ivory Coast's 3 goals vs. Senegal in FIFA WC Quals.

At first it seems like AW has committed a mistake in selling GYK and that too for a loss.But,on the flip side,He always seems to put better displays for this country than his club and further,he gave a lot of such false starts at Arsenal(esp. the one at the start of last season) but he faded dramatically and proved to be wildly inconsistent.

He could be sublime and poor in the same game(5-3 vs. Chelsea) in which he missed a sitter but ended starting the comeback by assisting RvPiss for the Arsenal's first goal.

AW lost his patience last season with GYK thanks to his poor displays,lot of headless chicken moments and profligacy in both creating/scoring chances.


And,it seemed like AW had made up his mind on GYK,and these were his exact words when GYK was transferred to Roma:

"I made that decision because he looked to play with a lack of confidence, especially at the Emirates."

But,I think he should have been given another chance considering how patient AW has been with players like Abou "always injured" Diaby. He would've improved the bench strength and would've utilized Oezil's through balls.

So,my question Do you think GYK would have come good this season had AW been more patient as he was in the case of plentiful of other Arsenal wastrels and trusted GYK a little more?

NO

Wouldn't necessarily say it was wrong. Diaby, Ramsey, these players have been given numerous chances. That's because AW sees something in them. They have been bad, but they showed that they've got something to offer. Gervinho on the other hand, he did show that he had something to offer, but he was never confident. He was given plenty of game time, but he never grew in confidence i'm afraid. And that problem of his was evident pretty much everytime he played and in the 2 years he was here, he never seemed capable of rectifying the issue. Could he have been a monster for us? Sure! His talent is undeniable imo, but would he ever fulfill his potential here? I'm not quite sure.

I hope all goes well for him though.

The transfer was the best decision for everyone involved.

Sure we could've kept him on the bench but that was not good enough for Gervais. And we should respect him that he decided to move on rather than collect his wages by contributing very little.

For us it was a good decision aswell. He wasn't really good enough and lack of service wasn't the problem most of the time. Now we have Gnabry, a fantastic talent who's producing good performances aswell.

Because he was always working hard at Arsenal and seems like a genuine nice guy, I'm really glad he's doing well.

Agreed that the transfer was the best decision for everyone involved,I think he should have been given one more chance and I think if he had stayed he would've been given his fair share of chances by AW either from the bench or as a starter when the others are injured/tired(Games after UCL/COC games).

The problem with Gnabry is that AW is trying to slowly introduce him to EPL.So he is gonna tread a very cautious path whereby AW will play our mids as wingers(as in the WBA game) because Gnabry isn't good defensively.So,if Sagna isn't playing,it implies Gnabry might not play,at least for now.In such situations,GYK would've been of some help because I feel he is good defensively and can track back and help the side-backs.

But,I don't think he can be a starter for a side competing for the league.Could have been a utility player at the most.Had he stayed this season he would at least improved our bench strength,if not in ability then at least in numbers.

On the brighter side,It has shown us how big a talent Gnabry is.  

Selling him alongwith Andre Santos made me pity Gervinho as he wasn't Santos-level bad.

Welcome to the forum.

No, it was one of the best decisions, I still cant believe we sold him for 8m. Gevinho is a good player but he just could not make it Arsenal. His passing and shooting was so frustrating.  
He just wasn’t good enough for our level. He featured in 63 matches for arsenal over 2 seasons and he only played well in about maybe10 of those matches. Wasn’t good enough and can only have himself to blame. There’s a lot of pressure at big clubs and he couldn’t handle it.

Cant shoot, cross or pass the ball.

Once everyone is back and healthy no way Gervinho would have even made the bench.

I would say "no mistake" on letting Gervinho go. Over two seasons he never really found a substantial patch of good form in this Arsenal squad. He had some impressive pace & skills, but he also had a lot of shortcomings (including fragile confidence issues). He doesn't have to be made into a villain or a scapegoat, and people don't have to pretend he completely sucks as a player. (He didn't suck at Lille at all. He isn't sucking right now at Roma. And every now and then he was quite good at Arsenal, too.) But at the same time, we have to accept that good players don't always fit into a team, and that it may be down to any number of variables. What's good for Arsenal is that they didn't lose a big chunk of money on Gervinho and they freed up a slot in the squad, and what's good for Gervinho is now he's playing well in another league for a manager who knows how to get the best out of him. Win-win.

Citrus wrote:The problem with Gnabry is that AW is trying to slowly introduce him to EPL.So he is gonna tread a very cautious path whereby AW will play our mids as wingers(as in the WBA game) because Gnabry isn't good defensively.So,if Sagna isn't playing,it implies Gnabry might not play,at least for now.In such situations,GYK would've been of some help because I feel he is good defensively and can track back and help the side-backs.

I think this might be a little harsh on Gnabry, who in his recent matches has shown he's actually willing to put in a fair bit of work compared to Walcott - there were heat maps & whatnot indicating Gnabry's defensive workrate and contribution were pretty good. So I don't know if using Wilshere/Rosicky/etc. as midfielders is because Gnabry isn't up to snuff defensively.

Chumlum wrote:What's good for Arsenal is that they didn't lose a big chunk of money on Gervinho and they freed up a slot in the squad, and what's good for Gervinho is now he's playing well in another league for a manager who knows how to get the best out of him. Win-win.

I think this might be a little harsh on Gnabry, who in his recent matches has shown he's actually willing to put in a fair bit of work compared to Walcott - there were heat maps & whatnot indicating Gnabry's defensive workrate and contribution were pretty good. So I don't know if using Wilshere/Rosicky/etc. as midfielders is because Gnabry isn't up to snuff defensively.

The problem is that AW hasn't filled that free up slot with an adequate replacement.

And I'm not blaming Gnabry for being bad defensively(I know he has been doing good on the defensive side too).It's just that AW feels so and wants him to play with the reliable Sagna so that even if Gnabry doesn't fulfill his defensive duties Sagna can manage.Whereas we know Jenkinson is suspect defensively so AW probably feels that Gnabry+Jenks combo might be bad from a defensive point of view.In such situations,GYK would've been of some help.

The basic problem is that I feel AW hasn't adequately replaced GYK with another better player.

I get what you're saying about Gervinho not being replaced (or upgraded) like for like - i.e. a senior player who is a wide forward that can dribble. But Ox is maturing. Walcott has the right side nailed down (when he's fit). Gnabry and Ryo are two young wide prospects who need to be introduced sooner or later (provided AW has the basic level of faith in them, which he seems to). Then there's Özil who is (a) capable of playing out wide if need be, and (b) so good at the central attacking midfield role that it effectively forces other midfielders wide, in particular Cazorla who is the most positionally versatile of the attacking mids.

So, what I'm saying is, Gervinho was a rotation player, not a surefire starter, and I think in many ways replacing him like for like isn't as crucial given the other options that were & are available.

*equip flame shield

Maybe it says something about Serie A quality ? yeap it's pretty awful this year.

Gervinho always had the talent. I am really happy to see him do well at Roma. I always backed him and i still do

I don't think it was a mistake in selling Gervinho though. He completely lost the fans. Had very little support. There is a trend that whenever it happens, the player usually goes. Luckily he went to Roma and under Garcia he will at least play to his best.

surely no..
he never got going at Arsenal despite having enough chances for 2 seasons.. there is no need to rethink about the decision just because he is doing well in a different country, league and playing style.. Gervais is already 25-26 and supposed to get adapted and going in 2 seasons.. examples quoted are Ramsey, Song, etc who were youth players who had potential.. dont forget Ramsey was very bright before his injury.. Diaby is a different case.. he is top class whenever he is fit..
i dont have good memories for him.. and he is the most frustrating player i have watched at Arsenal.. it was really good decision for both the club and him.. we managed to get 6m out of 8m we spend to buy him.. and he took the right decision to take a wagecut and move on for playing time..

this is similar to Velas case.. no one cared when he was loaned out or sold.. when he started scoring many feel that we missed him..

Some players just don't work at certain clubs. He was never going to succeed here. No matter how well he plays on a different team l won't ever have the thought in my mind that we made a mistake letting him go to a different club and try to get the most out of his career

Our only mistake was not replacing him.

We DID replace him, with Gnabry. He's in our first team now, another option if Podolski, Cazorla, Walcott and Oxlade-Chamberlain aren't available and he has proven to be good enough for the role.

Agreed with the unanimous position that the sale was best for player and club - I wish him all the best at Roma.

Gervinho was just not suited to the Arsenal style and how Wenger wanted him to play.
Wenger has specific expectations of his players and this conflicted with GYK's style. When he first arrived, he was really good in the first couple of games until he started learning the Arsenal was; to pass, pass, pass rather than take on players

We had to sell Gervinho to Roma otherwise how else would we have gotten Ozil!

Kwame2u wrote:Gervinho was just not suited to the Arsenal style and how Wenger wanted him to play.
Wenger has specific expectations of his players and this conflicted with GYK's style. When he first arrived, he was really good in the first couple of games until he started learning the Arsenal was; to pass, pass, pass rather than take on players

offtopic but what do you make of Ghana's chances for the WC? Egypt beatable?

RealGunner wrote:

Kwame2u wrote:Gervinho was just not suited to the Arsenal style and how Wenger wanted him to play.
Wenger has specific expectations of his players and this conflicted with GYK's style. When he first arrived, he was really good in the first couple of games until he started learning the Arsenal was; to pass, pass, pass rather than take on players

offtopic but what do you make of Ghana's chances for the WC? Egypt beatable?

Haha, I'm only seeing this message now but I am jumping for joy right now. I was kinda nervous bout the game and was thinking Ghana could sneak it by 1 goal or it ends up being a draw. That would have made the return fixture in Egypt quite tricky.

Needless to say now, return leg just needs to be drawn and Ghana have the defence to keep Egypt out