Do we always have to make comparisons?
For me, the discussion started from these posts.
Let’s not forget the idiots who tormented Rafa towards the end of his tenure. Wenger was a generational manager, like Klopp.
I genuinely have affection for him, the players he signed and the football you played. It was other worldly at times. Still, will never forgive you for the 4-4 at Anfield when you had about four shots on target and we were going for the league!
Wenger failed year after year in Europe, a very good manager PL yes, but not comprable to a manager who’s done what Klopp has done in Europe.
Did Liverpool fans mercilessly boo Rafa during matches?
Does success always have to be quantified in the 'right' trophies? (Because he didn't win the CL, that apparently negates all the trophies he did win.) Can we not just look at the man in isolation and acknowledge what he did for the sport and for Arsenal?
No, literally nobody said not winning the CL negates the trophies, how did you make such a leap from this discussion, I don't know. Yes, we can look into isolation and plenty, including myself have acknowledged that he was a great manager - it's not black and white as you try to portray.
There were some posts with other managers thrown in - the thing is all players and managers are compared - people can recognize two players'/managers' greatness and still want to see who was better - it's not that abnormal in football at all. As long as the discussion is about football and the merits and demerits of the players/managers can be discussed. In this thread, among recent posts alone, the names of Rafa, Klopp, Shankly (mentioned by TNB himself), Chapman, Sacchi, Paisley and maybe a few others were mentioned. Comparison in football gives a reference point - one being better than the other doesn't automatically mean the other was not good/poor or anything like what you've taken away from this at all.
No one is competing against City right now, so why even bother criticizing a team from 20 years ago because they wouldn't be able to do any better? Points comparisons are just as moot as comparing players with 2 decades between them. The sport, the training, the nutrition and the money have all changed. The thing is, Wenger is partially responsible for some of those changes. That's what puts him in the echelon of great managers, and the lack of a CL trophy doesn't change that.
Absolutely wrong that nobody has competed against City - have you not seen our three title charges against them and narrowly missing out twice? If that's not competing, nothing is.
You can compare players/managers over different eras with respect to their achievements (and trophies is not the only thing we were discussing - we were discussing other points like peak in the PL, the respective competition, and how much they have improved their teams), it's harder when you make silly blanked statements, but it's easier when discussed with context, which is what is being done here.
Nobody is denying that Wenger made changes at Arsenal in a positive way, and again, I have acknowledged plenty of times that he was a great manager.
Stop taking it in a black and white way and chill, it's just a discussion.
